A Pennsylvania charter school employee who resigned after being denied time off to observe the Lunar Sabbath can move forward with her religious discrimination lawsuit, a federal court ruled on September 23, 2026.
As The National Law Review reported, the case raises important questions about employers' obligations to accommodate religious practices, even those that are relatively unfamiliar.
Key Takeaways
A federal court allowed a former charter school employee's religious discrimination and retaliation claims to proceed toward trial.
The employee requested a modified work schedule to observe the Lunar Sabbath, which follows the lunar cycle rather than a fixed weekday.
The court found sufficient evidence for a jury to consider whether the school's refusal to accommodate her religious beliefs effectively forced her to resign.
The ruling highlights employers' obligations to meaningfully consider religious accommodations rather than simply rejecting requests.
What Is the Lunar Sabbath?
The Lunar Sabbath is a religious observance that follows the phases of the moon rather than a fixed seven-day weekly calendar.
Unlike the traditional Jewish Sabbath, which begins Friday evening, or the Sunday worship practices common in Christianity, Lunar Sabbath observance is tied to the lunar cycle.
Specific practices vary among adherents. Some observe Sabbath days according to particular phases of the moon, while others recognize the New Moon as a day of religious rest.
In this case, the employee's religious beliefs required her to refrain from working on the day of the New Moon, which falls on different weekdays throughout the year.
Why Did the Employee Sue Her Employer?
According to federal court records, Monik Johnson worked as a business manager at York Academy Regional Charter School in Pennsylvania from 2011 until 2019.
Johnson began observing the Lunar Sabbath in 2017. The following year, she requested a religious accommodation allowing her to take off weekdays that coincided with the New Moon.
To minimize disruptions, Johnson proposed working four 10-hour days during affected weeks, maintaining her regular 40-hour schedule. She had already worked a similar schedule during the school's summer months.
The school requested additional information, including third-party verification of her sincerely held religious beliefs and details about her availability.
Johnson provided the requested information and explained that she could identify her Sabbath dates up to a year in advance. She also indicated that she could be contacted for genuine emergencies.
However, when the school's CEO presented the request to its Board of Trustees, his recommendation omitted several important details, including Johnson's willingness to maintain a 40-hour workweek.
The board denied the accommodation, arguing that the requested absences would create an undue hardship. Although school officials expressed willingness to consider alternatives, they did not identify a specific accommodation that would resolve the conflict.
Johnson subsequently resigned and filed a lawsuit alleging religious discrimination and retaliation.
Federal Court Rejects School's Attempt to End the Lawsuit
The school initially failed in two attempts to dismiss Johnson's complaint in 2023.
On September 23, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania also denied the school's motion for summary judgment, allowing the case to proceed toward trial.
The school argued that Johnson had voluntarily resigned and therefore had not experienced an adverse employment action.
However, the court concluded that a jury could reasonably find that Johnson had experienced constructive discharge, a legal concept describing circumstances in which working conditions become so intolerable that an employee effectively has no reasonable choice but to resign.
The court emphasized that Johnson faced a choice between continuing her employment and violating her religious beliefs.
Another significant issue was the school's failure to propose a workable alternative to Johnson's requested accommodation.
The court explained that simply inviting an employee to suggest another solution does not itself constitute a religious accommodation.
The ruling does not establish that the school violated the law. Instead, it allows a jury to consider Johnson's claims, including her request for punitive damages.
What Does the Case Mean for Religious Freedom at Work?
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, covered employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious beliefs and practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the business.
Religious accommodations may include modified schedules, shift changes, or time off for religious observances.
Importantly, employees do not have to belong to a major or widely recognized religion to receive legal protection. Sincerely held religious beliefs may qualify even when they are unconventional or newly adopted.
The U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy also clarified that employers must demonstrate substantial increased costs in relation to their particular business to establish undue hardship under Title VII.
For employers, the Lunar Sabbath case underscores the importance of considering accommodation requests carefully and evaluating all relevant information before making a decision.
For employees, it highlights how religious freedom protections can extend to observances outside mainstream religious traditions.
The central question is not whether an employer shares or understands an employee's beliefs, but whether the employer has fulfilled its legal obligations to reasonably accommodate them.
